Free Trade
Question 1
Since free trade agreements have been signed why have so many jobs been lost?
Since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was signed January 1, 1994 allowing the tariffs on goods from Canada, Mexico, and the United States. The treaty also protected intellectual property rights and outlines the removal of investment restrictions among the three countries. Provisions regarding worker and environmental protection were added later as a result of supplemental agreements signed in 1992. Since NAFTA was signed the displacement of production that supported over 800,000 U.S. jobs.With more free trade agreements being talked about there may be even more jobs may be lost when countries do not have to pay taxes for the product to be shipped to other countries. Many candidates are for expanding the free trade agreements. Clinton was to make the agreements in which should provide assistance to American citizens that lost their jobs.
Question 2
From free trade why it that companies are moving out of our country?
Companies are moving out because with free trade they are able to make their product cheaper and then with no taxes for them to sell their product here they are able to sell easier.
“The problem with these claims is that they misrepresent the real effects of trade on the U.S. economy: trade both creates and destroys jobs. Increases in U.S. exports tend to create jobs in this country, but increases in imports tend to reduce jobs by displacing goods that otherwise would have been made in the United States by domestic workers. Ignoring imports and counting only exports is like balancing a checkbook by counting only deposits but not withdrawals,” (Economic Policy Institution). With so many companies moving out leads to why the unemployment rate has soared as it was did during the depression, but our unemployment rate is defiantly not as high as it was during the depression.
Question 3
Why is it that we want to expand free trade, but we promised when the first free trade agreement was made up, it promised to that it would provide jobs in the U.S., but why do we want to reconsider came the agreements broder whe really they are hurting our economy?
The free trade agreements like NAFTA promised that there would be more jobs in the U.S. and else where, but what they really didn't see in the future is that yes more jobs would be made just not in our country. I can honestly say this because Electrolux also none as Frigidaire moved out of my home town to Mexico taking thousands of jobs with it. That company was what kept our town going day to day. I know so many people that are with out jobs even though it has been a couple of years since it moved. With other compaines moving out of our country why do we want to make agreements expand?
Sara's page
Januray 14
Prompt: In the past you have probably never paid attention to whether or not you were appealing to your readers' logic, emotion, or character. Go back and think of times when you have written and have done so. Do you have an idea of how to appeal to your reader? What of these three appeals will you need to work on the most? Are you good at giving examples? Are you pretty logical? Do you know how to sound like a good, moral person? Spend some time writing about these three appeals and how you perhaps compare to the author you are analyzing and how you measure up and what you need to work on.
In the past I have tried to write to my reader’s logic by trying to understand what I want them to know from my writing. I also tried to get them to think more about the topic that I was writing about or trying to persuade them. When it came to writing emotion within my paper I only really used on emotion in my writing anger or attitude. I think I can say that I have never really tried to get in or write in character. To appeal to my reader I always tried to get the thought throw by saying a little about both sides of the story but never write more than was needed about the other side/conflict that I didn’t want my readers to actually want to be on. I honestly believe that I would have to work on all three a little more, but if it came down to only picking my weakest appeal it would be emotion and character. I believe so but I’m not a hundred percent sure. A good moral person would be like someone who understands both sides of the story or just wants someone to care about what matters to them and the rest of the world. Compared to Denis Baron I think I would have a lot of work on character and just getting to point across to the person without a lot of unneeded detail.
Summary of Article/Blog
Jeremy Robertsen in "Should English be the official language of the USA?" he stated that demanding a nation to become multilingual is like telling a wire whisk to become measuring spoons. Robertsen truly believes that English should be the bona fide language of our nation. If the United States doesn't approve English to be its legal language then millions are going to have to be forced to learn not only a new language but a new culture. Cooperation’s is going to be difficult to carry though because we all speak different tongue. The only reason we a person or people should not have to speak English is if they are here on a business trip or are here for the government.
Thesis- "The notion of requiring an entire nation to become multilingual is ridicules, at present. Deciding which languages to require American citizens to speak would be quite an undertaking, and turn out to be a waste of time."
jus·tice –noun
1.
the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause.
2.
rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason: to complain with justice.
3.
the moral principle determining just conduct.
4.
conformity to this principle, as manifested in conduct; just conduct, dealing, or treatment.
5.
the administering of deserved punishment or reward.
6.
the maintenance or administration of what is just by law, as by judicial or other proceedings: a court of justice.
7.
judgment of persons or causes by judicial process: to administer justice in a community.
8.
a judicial officer; a judge or magistrate.
9.
(initial capital letter) Also called Justice Department. the Department of Justice.
—Idioms
10.
bring to justice, to cause to come before a court for trial or to receive punishment for one's misdeeds: The murderer was brought to justice.
11.
do justice,
a.
to act or treat justly or fairly.
b.
to appreciate properly: We must see this play again to do it justice.
c.
to acquit in accordance with one's abilities or potentialities: He finally got a role in which he could do himself justice as an actor.
[Origin: 1150–1200; ME < OF < L jūstitia, equiv. to jūst(us) just1 + -itia-ice]
Journal 3
When you wrote paper number two on the definition of a word, what specific argument strategies did you use? Why did you choose these specific strategies? Did you feel that they helped you organize your argument, or did using them make it more difficult for you to write? Why do you think this was so? How do you feel about your logos, pathos, and ethos in this piece?
With writing my last paper I can say that I think that it was like hell for me and I don't think that I did a very good job on the paper at all. I tried to use the classification and cause and effect, also specific examples, but i can tell you that i don't think that i did it correct. I tried to use these strategies because i thought that i could give different examples of justice then use the cause and effect to explane different levels of justice and how people get away with murder and how we should stop our courts to do that. Yes, I do think it did help me with organizing my paper. I did have trouble writing the paper becaue i still didn't get it as much as i would have liked too. It's very hard for me to write my paper because I still once again don't understand logos, pathos, and ethos, it almost maked it harder for me.
April 4, 2008
imovie for free trade
March 6, 2008
Research proposals
Free Trade
Question 1
Since free trade agreements have been signed why have so many jobs been lost?
Since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was signed January 1, 1994 allowing the tariffs on goods from Canada, Mexico, and the United States. The treaty also protected intellectual property rights and outlines the removal of investment restrictions among the three countries. Provisions regarding worker and environmental protection were added later as a result of supplemental agreements signed in 1992. Since NAFTA was signed the displacement of production that supported over 800,000 U.S. jobs. With more free trade agreements being talked about there may be even more jobs may be lost when countries do not have to pay taxes for the product to be shipped to other countries. Many candidates are for expanding the free trade agreements. Clinton was to make the agreements in which should provide assistance to American citizens that lost their jobs.
Question 2
From free trade why it that companies are moving out of our country?
Companies are moving out because with free trade they are able to make their product cheaper and then with no taxes for them to sell their product here they are able to sell easier.
“The problem with these claims is that they misrepresent the real effects of trade on the U.S. economy: trade both creates and destroys jobs. Increases in U.S. exports tend to create jobs in this country, but increases in imports tend to reduce jobs by displacing goods that otherwise would have been made in the United States by domestic workers. Ignoring imports and counting only exports is like balancing a checkbook by counting only deposits but not withdrawals,” (Economic Policy Institution).
With so many companies moving out leads to why the unemployment rate has soared as it was did during the depression, but our unemployment rate is defiantly not as high as it was during the depression.
Question 3
Why is it that we want to expand free trade, but we promised when the first free trade agreement was made up, it promised to that it would provide jobs in the U.S., but why do we want to reconsider came the agreements broder whe really they are hurting our economy?
The free trade agreements like NAFTA promised that there would be more jobs in the U.S. and else where, but what they really didn't see in the future is that yes more jobs would be made just not in our country. I can honestly say this because Electrolux also none as Frigidaire moved out of my home town to Mexico taking thousands of jobs with it. That company was what kept our town going day to day. I know so many people that are with out jobs even though it has been a couple of years since it moved. With other compaines moving out of our country why do we want to make agreements expand?
Sara's page
Januray 14
Prompt: In the past you have probably never paid attention to whether or not you were appealing to your readers' logic, emotion, or character. Go back and think of times when you have written and have done so. Do you have an idea of how to appeal to your reader? What of these three appeals will you need to work on the most? Are you good at giving examples? Are you pretty logical? Do you know how to sound like a good, moral person? Spend some time writing about these three appeals and how you perhaps compare to the author you are analyzing and how you measure up and what you need to work on.
In the past I have tried to write to my reader’s logic by trying to understand what I want them to know from my writing. I also tried to get them to think more about the topic that I was writing about or trying to persuade them. When it came to writing emotion within my paper I only really used on emotion in my writing anger or attitude. I think I can say that I have never really tried to get in or write in character. To appeal to my reader I always tried to get the thought throw by saying a little about both sides of the story but never write more than was needed about the other side/conflict that I didn’t want my readers to actually want to be on. I honestly believe that I would have to work on all three a little more, but if it came down to only picking my weakest appeal it would be emotion and character. I believe so but I’m not a hundred percent sure. A good moral person would be like someone who understands both sides of the story or just wants someone to care about what matters to them and the rest of the world. Compared to Denis Baron I think I would have a lot of work on character and just getting to point across to the person without a lot of unneeded detail.
Summary of Article/Blog
Jeremy Robertsen in "Should English be the official language of the USA?" he stated that demanding a nation to become multilingual is like telling a wire whisk to become measuring spoons. Robertsen truly believes that English should be the bona fide language of our nation. If the United States doesn't approve English to be its legal language then millions are going to have to be forced to learn not only a new language but a new culture. Cooperation’s is going to be difficult to carry though because we all speak different tongue. The only reason we a person or people should not have to speak English is if they are here on a business trip or are here for the government.
Thesis- "The notion of requiring an entire nation to become multilingual is ridicules, at present. Deciding which languages to require American citizens to speak would be quite an undertaking, and turn out to be a waste of time."
jus·tice
–noun
[Origin: 1150–1200; ME < OF < L jūstitia, equiv. to jūst(us) just1 + -itia -ice
Journal 3
When you wrote paper number two on the definition of a word, what specific argument strategies did you use? Why did you choose these specific strategies? Did you feel that they helped you organize your argument, or did using them make it more difficult for you to write? Why do you think this was so? How do you feel about your logos, pathos, and ethos in this piece?
With writing my last paper I can say that I think that it was like hell for me and I don't think that I did a very good job on the paper at all. I tried to use the classification and cause and effect, also specific examples, but i can tell you that i don't think that i did it correct. I tried to use these strategies because i thought that i could give different examples of justice then use the cause and effect to explane different levels of justice and how people get away with murder and how we should stop our courts to do that. Yes, I do think it did help me with organizing my paper. I did have trouble writing the paper becaue i still didn't get it as much as i would have liked too. It's very hard for me to write my paper because I still once again don't understand logos, pathos, and ethos, it almost maked it harder for me.